Posted
by
Zonkon Friday May 25, 2007 @06:04PM
from the vote-quimby dept.

blast writes "Given the broad field of candidates, I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about? Eg: privacy, 'total information awareness', Internet regulation and taxation, net neutrality, copyright/patent reform, the right to read, the right to secure communications, the right to tinker. Who do you think best represents your views? "

I agree. It's unfortunate that he isn't running, I think he would have a real shot. I think he would probably carry a lot of the vote that he carried in 2000, plus pick up votes from people that voted for Bush at that time and now regret it. At any rate, it would make the Democratic primary a whole lot more interesting.

Of course, his campaign would have to bar him from using the word "lockbox" at any time.

That isn't what your constitution says. Bill Clinton, and any other two-term elected president, is constitutionally barred from being elected president. That's all that the 22nd amendment says. He isn't barred from holding any other elected office, including vice president, or ascending to the presidency by some other means. (Say he ran for Congress, got elected Speaker, and then the P & VP both die. He's next in line, he takes over.)

If you absolutely have to vote for a conservative, you could certainly do worse. Of course, he's really more libertarian, with the implied support for strong property rights that entails. Let me use a quote from him to point out the absurdity of the libertarian position:

Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless.

If that's true, then without money to buy a press, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the

They want the freedom to do whatever they want without the responsibility that goes with it.

That's funny, I haven't heard that from the Libertarian camp.

For example, yes they feel that you should have the ability to use recreational drugs in your own home but once you step outside and endanger someone elses life,liberty, and pursuit of happiness, they loose that responsibility.

Ron Paul is a Republican. He is under consideration by the Contitution Party [constitutionparty.com] as a potential nominee under their party, and it appears the people in the party strongly desire his transfer.

Libertarians believe in individual rights as well as social responsibility; furthermore, every Libertarian with whom I associate believes people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians desire the return to the fundamental Constitution of the United States [archives.gov].
Before disparaging all people who beleive the best approach for the U.S.A. as a nation of freedom and liberty lies with the Libertarian Party [lp.org], you should review the Libertarian Platform [lp.org].

Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.

Are you saying I advocate rights for the rich and slavery for the poor? I am Libertarian AND poor and I advocate liberty for all, not just the rich. Fact is is that reducing government and therefore taxes will mean there is more money available to create new jobs, whereas big government can destroy jobs.

The point is, the libertarian position is directly against wealth redistribution. In most modern societies, this is done through progressive taxing, luxury taxes, and estate taxes. Without those tools, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and eventually are so far behind that they are pretty much slaves.

Stealing from the rich and giving to uncle Sam you mean? Allow more people to keep more of the money they earn then they can create new jobs which benefit everyone. They can do this in two ways. The more money people can keep that they earn, the more they can invest and/or spend. Investing means more money can be used for research and for job creation. The more people spend the more jobs can be created as well. Whereas with government, with few exceptions government is less efficient than the capital market. Also more money goes to the already wealthy.

For instance in the US large multinational agriculture corporations get billions of dollars in subsidies yearly. That was a big reason the WTO meetings in Geneva fell apart. India and other countries demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop subsidizing these businesses because with subsidizies multinationals can sell food in India, South Korea, and Mexico cheaper than farmers in these countries can grow food. If you live in the US do you ever wonder why so many Mexicans and other Latin Americans come to the US as "illegal aliens or immigrants"? Many of them are being driven off of their farms because they can't compete with subsidized US agribusinesses who are able to export food to Mexico and sale it cheaply there.

I'm not a libertarian at the state level. I'm a pretty radical socialist. If Ron Paul was running for my state rep or governor, I wouldn't give him the time of day. I'd be looking for someone to the left of Kucinich (if there is such a thing).

I'm a libertarian at the federal level because forcing my ideas on to the people of all 50 states is a bad way to get things done. You and I could be happy in our liberal paradise with our socialized medicine, $10/hr minimum wage, decent public schools, etc. The fine people in Utah wouldn't.

From a purely pragmatic perspective, the "red states" are a net negative on the treasury (they take in more federal money than they dole out in taxes). They're always trying to shove religion down our throat as well. Cut them loose and let them turn their population into a bunch of idiot hicks that can't get a job. We'll do just fine without them TYVM.

Let the politicians in the shitty states screw up their own states AND NOTHING MORE.

Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.

No, libertarians advocate liberty. Even people who have nothing can choose to use their mind and their hands to create wealth for themselves. Libertarians just don't think it should be somebody else's responsibility to make wealth for the people who choose not to make it themselves.

libertarianism provides only simple answers to complex questions

Libertarians do provide mostly simple answers, but the questions aren't as complex as you think they are. They only seem complex because they've been answered by corrupt bureaucrats who are beholden to conflicting corporate and minority interests.

and libertarians will never directly answer any challenges to their beliefs, they will simply accuse you of hating freedom

I am a libertarian. I will directly answer any challenges to my beliefs. I will also not accuse of you hating freedom (most people I encounter, including you, truly do love freedom). However, when a libertarian answers a question, liberty will almost certainly come up; it is at the core of the libertarian ideal. Moreover, you must expect that a Libertarian will often claim that liberty trumps utility. If you don't believe that liberty could ever be the paramount consideration, then become a utilitarian and form your own party.

I've said it before

Yeah, you should probably stop saying it, huh?

Libertarians forget that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Libertarians believe that every action has a consequence, and everybody is responsible for his or her own actions through the consequences of those actions. Libertarians also believe that society is responsible for somebody, that person is no longer completely responsible for themselves. So, libertarians advocate that these people be solely responsible for themselves.

Libertarianism: the philosophical equivalent of shouting, "you're not the boss of me!" in response to any question.

"We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so."

Dont forget that he's on the board of Apple. [apple.com] He's also an unofficial advisor to google [wikipedia.org] and cofounded something called Current TV [current.tv] which I'd never heard of before, but looks like youtube. Are there even any other politicians as tech saavy as he is, much less one that is hoped to be running for president?

Gore? Not even close. Gore is an entitlement vector. Like most from the Democrat side of the spectrum, he wants to take the nerd money (and everyone else's money) and spend it on pork; worse yet, he'd push the mommy government even deeper into it's trend of legislating against consensual, victimless, informed actions [ideaspike.com]. He's your 2nd worst nightmare.

Ron Paul is by far the candidate that not only represents the "nerd", but also the actual basis for the government, the constitution. The only thing a president can really do (legitimately) is fool with foreign policy, and Paul isn't the least interested in making war on anyone - check out his positions. If we could get a congress that had actually read and understood the constitution (not to mention a supreme court), then you'd really have something.

But we all know what's going to happen: Middle america will elect Yet Another Corporate Hack from one of the two Corporate Sets of Well Financed Hacks, and nothing will change. It'll be just like the Democrats "taking over congress". Tons of promises, but are we out of Iraq? No. Are there *any* legislative signs we're going to be? No. Do we have any relief from Bush's illegal wiretapping and "signing statements" and pandering to Haliburton and crew? No.

If you really want improvement, cast your vote for Ron Paul. It won't be wasted, because as the Democrats have just shown us, there are no differences between mainstream moneyed candidates... so it won't make a bit of difference where your vote goes if you vote for anyone else. After all, we can't have Bush again. Unless he makes another illegal executive order, of course.

I agree with respect to Ron Paul. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist until I saw how bad government can get when your guys aren't running the place. Maturity and George W. Bush have taught me that less is more.

I'm still quite the socialist*, but my view of the constitution is originalist. Many federal programs that I think are just fine are, unfortunately, not constitutional. The states should be running these programs as they see fit, not the feds. Realistically, conservatives want Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee having as little say in their lives as possible. Similarly, I want Orrin Hatch and James Inhofe having very little say in my life. The best way to do this is to return power to the states where it rightly belongs.

*I actually identify as a "states' rights liberal" if there is such a thing.

'I agree - with the proviso that we have immigration policies between states.'

If by that you free the free and unfettered ability to travel and move residence between states then I agree. After all, it defeats the point if one can't move away from states with bad policies and into states with good policies.

After all, it defeats the point if one can't move away from states with bad policies and into states with good policies.

It also removes a useful remedial effect: States with bad policies would see a population (and revenue) drop, while states with good policies would see gains. This would tend to send a wake up call to the worse states, which would act, based on economic pressure, to adjust the bad policies to be more in line with what people actually want. The more homogenous the states are, the less leverage the citizens have. Voting with your wallet (and your feet) is a great way to say "no thanks, buddy" to politicians that are out of control. With the feds running everything (and they pretty much are trying to), the differences erode and the citizen's power to force change with their feet/wallet erodes at the same time.

Most people aren't going to change states because of their state's policies. Also, environmental issues of one state effect the environment in other states.

Taking this idea even further, would you be pissed if you were a landowner and your next door neighbor decided to build a power plant and a toxic waste dump on his property? Clearly anyone who doesn't like it should leave his property. But you are on a different property.

There is nothing in the constititution about immigration laws. Immigration laws were an unconstitutional addition in 1882 the Chinese exclusion Act - a blatantly racist act. Before that there were no laws preventing anyone in the world from coming to America and as long as they followed American laws they were Americans. Since its not even constitutional to have immigration laws on a national basis how can you have it between states?

Don't you think the duplication of bureaucracy among the states is a waste of taxpayer money?

No. For instance, what works for New York State, a verdant, wet and well populated region, will not work for Montana; we have other environmental issues. Socially, we're also different: Actions taken legally in Connecticut (for instance, that the state can steal your property under eminent domain for the basically evil purpose of getting more tax revenue out of it), are 100% illegal in Montana for the specific reason that we have our own bureaucracy and they aren't quite as batshit insane as those legislators abusing the citizens of Connecticut. Texans can't sell sex toys (poor bastards), but we can. In some states, atheists can't hold public office. Unbelievable, but 100% true. Please keep both the feds and your own state's ideas far, far, away — really, if you want these laws, by all means, but keep them to yourselves. I'm sure you don't want our idea of what is good law forced on you, either. People significantly differ in outlook by region for both social and practical geographical reasons.

State's rights are critically important, likewise it is important that we stop the feds from illegitimately taking over everything they put their nasty little fingers on. Take a look at what they've done with the commerce clause if you want to see just how out of their tiny little minds they are.

Actually, there's both view on both sides of the political spectrum. Some conservatives want big government (as the current administration does), while other conservatives want small government (libertarians). Effectively, big government = federal rule, and small government = states rights.

Liberals are the same way - there are those who want the federal government to stay out of their lives and primarily be involved in regulating businesses, dealing with other countries, etc. Then there are the liberals who want the "mommy society", as a previous poster put it - i.e. the federal government regulating everything that could conceivably be considered harmful in any way.

Actually states' rights is the belief of the minority party in the legislature.

Everyone falls back on "leave it to the states" when they have no power to affect the change at the national level. Once they get in power, sticking up for states' rights falls by the wayside.

We can see this in action with respect to the Republican party. They were for states' rights for most of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s. That was because they were the minority party during those years in the House. They gained control in '95 and made the transformation to "big government conservatism" right around 2000 (if not before).

Indeed it was. That doesn't change the fact that they are unconstitutional.

The problem when you ignore the constitution for "good" programs, you must also ignore the constitution for "bad" programs. Either the feds have the power or they don't. We don't get to pick and choose when they do based on which party is in control of the legislature.

Oh, they have power, all right. They out and out stole it. What they don't have is authority. More to the point, there is provision in the constitution for making any changes that the country agrees are needed. This removes any possible justification for the feds acting outside the constituting authority (and I am sure the authors of the constitution knew this full well.) Most federal activities are 100% illegitimate by definition, because no law that violates constitutional boundaries (enumeration of federal powers on the one hand, rights of the people and the states on the other) can be legitimate. Enforcement is based upon power, not authority, because the only legitimate authority the feds have, or ever had, is that delegated to them by the constitution. Either they are going to obey it, and be legitimate, or they are not, and no one thing in the constitution is safe from abuse, which is exactly where we are now.

The best thing a president could possibly do for nerds or just about anyone else is stop making more laws and start dismantling the stupid laws perpetrated by previous governments.

I am not in the US, so I can't do much about your choice of president, but at least I can have my say here. The way I see it from here, your options can be divided unambiguously into two groups:

1: Scumbags that will sell you out, nay, have already sold you out, to whichever corporate and special interests will finance their campaign.

2: Ron Paul.

I am a cynic. I hardly expect people to vote in their own best interests. There's a reason the scumbags sell their souls for campaign money - it gets them elected. So I expect another scumbag leading your country in 2009. But please, please, for the sake of all that is good, pure and true in this world, anyone but Giuliani.

I swear, if you guys elect Giuliani, I am going to go out every weekend, find drunk Americans, and beat the crap out of them. Maybe even daily. You've been warned.

Like most from the Democrat side of the spectrum, he wants to take the nerd money (and everyone else's money) and spend it on pork.

Middle america will elect Yet Another Corporate Hack from one of the two Corporate Sets of Well Financed Hacks, and nothing will change. It'll be just like the Democrats "taking over congress". Tons of promises, but are we out of Iraq? No. Are there *any* legislative signs we're going to be? No. Do we have any relief from Bush's illegal wiretapping and "signing statements" and pandering to Haliburton and crew? No.

You're using an interesting technique to tar the Democrats.

First, haul out the old canard that the Democrats are less fiscally responsible than the Republicans. That may have been true when Walter Mondale was running for President, but those times are long gone. The White House and Congress have presided over an enormous porkfest over the last six years. Instead of inefficient social welfare programs, it's being spent on Halliburton and Blackwater. The party of small government has disappeared, and has been replaced by the new and improved "Spend & Spend" Republican Party. As long as you spend it on war, somehow it's not as wasteful as spending it on social programs. The Democrats have become more fiscally responsible than the Republicans, at least at the national level.

Next, blame the Democrats for the failures of the Republican Party. Ohmigosh! The Democrats haven't suddenly extracated us from Iraq! You seem to think that the Democrats have been doing nothing, but there has been a heated battle on Capitol Hill over funding the war. The budget is the only weapon the Democrats have in this situation, and everyone knows that if they go nuclear with the budget, they'll lose their leverage. It is Bush's complete refusal to listen to the will of the public, to budge even one inch, that is keeping us in Iraq. Let's put the blame where it really lies, with the self-proclaimed "War President."

the Democrats have just shown us, there are no differences between mainstream moneyed candidates

There are differences. Look at where our national priorities were under two terms of Clinton and compare that to two terms of Bush. Look at the issues that are most important to Republican voters (Guns & God), and the issues that are most important to Democratic voters (Jobs & Environment). The fact that both parties have money behind them doesn't mean that there are no differences between them.

That said, I think we need more choices. A choice between two parties doesn't adequately represent the range of views in the American electorate. Paul certainly looks more credible than any third-party candidate in recent memory. Unfortunately, the sort of government Paul wants is a radical return to a prewar ideal that may be impossible to achieve, given the fact that government is the largest employer in the United States.

Ron Paul is different. Check his congressional voting record. Go on. I dare you. It doesn't even slightly resemble any Demopublican or Republicrat you could possibly name. Then check his web site for his stated positions, and compare them to his voting record. You're in for a heck of a surprise. The man isn't evil at all. I don't agree with every position he holds, but the vast majority, I do. Furthermore, they actually are his positions and he actually votes his positions. It'd be a total mindf*ck to have a politician in the white house who made every effort to be reasonable, honest, and true to the constitutional basis of their job. Go on, check him out. I know you haven't, because even if you completely disagreed with the man, you'd never compare him to the run of the mill candidate. You'd have to disagree with him for entirely new reasons.:)

1. Clinton's tax cuts occurred in 1993 when Democrats had control of Congress and the white house.

Wrong. I don't know why anyone modded you up for this gross and blatent revisionism, but Clinton promised tax cuts in 1992, then delivered tax increases in 1993. Just search Google for "1993 Clinton Tax Cut".

If only it were *really* that simple. I personally have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, despite disagreeing with him on many things. But neither Ron Paul nor Al Gore would (currently) be able to affect the changes nerds want. Not because they don't want to, but because it's up to Congress to make and repeal laws. A president makes a great figurehead, but if nerds want to be represented, they need to start replacing their representatives, which is a long and slow process, if it's even possible at all. Nerds would essentially have to band together and gain a *majority* in a significant fraction of the 50 states and 435 districts. Let me know when we get started on that.

Nader needs to be kicked out of the party and stuffed into a retirement home. Every time he TOUCHES the nomination, it tanks the entire party's legitimacy. I'm registered Green and I loathe the jerk. He's so far off-base from the core ideals that it would be funny if he didn't manage to self-proclaim himself the party's candidate every damn election. Watch what happens - he'll declare himself the candidate next time around, despite who the people actually vote for.

As for Republican, Ron Paul without a doubt. The powermongering and consolidation of power in D.C. is appalling and needs to stop now before the entire system implodes. Or we turn into a police state like the U.K. We need a massive swing back towards the center and he's the only person who's even entertaining the notion.

As for Democrat, obviously Obama, since he has the least political connections and time in the system(and therefore the least corrupted). He seem pretty level-headed, like with this vote - he said he'd read it before he made his mind up. Gosh - what a novel concept! Reading legislation instead of toting the party line!. Btw, he did vote against it. This should be the litmus test for Democrats, btw - whether they voted to stop the war or not.

Nader needs to be kicked out of the party and stuffed into a retirement home.

How can you be a registered Green and not know that Nader has never been in the party? He promised his dying father he'd never join a political party, and it would appear that applies even to parties that run him for President.

I thought he did a great job for the party in 2000, gave us a serious kick in the shins in 2004. I'm not interested in running him next time, and am giving ever-increasing attention to the question of who it

Did you even see "An Inconvenient Truth"? They had this staged conversation on his cellphone as he was typing at his computer. As the conversation became more dramatic towards the end, he positioned his finger over a key and at the right climactic moment, pressed it. The key was the spacebar.

Actually that is not true. The votes in the swing states are divided approaching evenly between parties. That means the candidates have to work hard for any undecided's. In the non-swing states, the votes count just as much, sometimes more, but everyone knows who the overwhelming majority are going to vote for. If we got rid of the electoral college, only the votes of people in high population states would count. If it is simple majority of votes, who gives a s$$t about Alaska voters, there are probably more undecided's in Chicago than all the voters in Alaska (and certainly more in the greater metropolitan Chicago area).
The biggest problem with our Presidential elections is that all the media really pays attention to is the "horse race", who's ahead in the polls, who's gaining ground who's losing ground. The news media don't really tell you about a candidates stand on an issue unless it is one they care about, and even then they distort the position. Sometimes they distort to make a candidates position seem closer to the ideal, sometimes further away. I remember one election (state or local), candidate A thought the priorities should be: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5; candidate B thought the priorities should be: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 5, Item 4. The local press all reported "Candidate A is opposed to Item 5, Candidate B favors it".

"Stephen Harper, or whoever else is Prime Minister of Canada on November 5, 2008 [X]"

Anyone who can scrape together 67 points can get in, and anyone with a Bachelor's degree (which guarantees you'll get the full 16 points for English proficiency, even though your Americanness guarantees you'll get 0 points for French:) and one year's work experience and a job offer -- or one year's work experience and a spouse with a Bachelor's degree -- is going to make the cut.

Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.

What would make us happy?

For example net neutrality. Net neutrality pisses off some money pumpers, though, and the general population doesn't care. Will we get it?

For example, no longer blaming computer games for violence. But it's a cheap scapegoat and it makes overcareful and ignorant parents happy, and it's a cheap excuse not to change a thing about education or social issues. Not blaming games cost more money and votes than blaming them.

For example, if the mafiaa didn't get whatever laws they want handed to them. Though, we're the only ones caring, there's a lot of money coming from them, so... see first example.

Do I have to go on?

Face it, as long as we don't ship more geeks into the US from somewhere, we won't get jack from either side of the political spectrum. We don't count.

Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.

Wrong. Slashdot is a group that doesn't (as a group) have clear priorities, communicate them to politicians, and give lots of money to political campaigns based on them, therefore as a group it doesn't exist to politicians.

Lots of small groups have extraordinary influence, politically, in this country.

Lots of small groups have extraordinary influence, politically, in this country.

Squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that. Some groups have influence that is far out of proportion to their actual value to society. Personally, I think we need to form a Slashdot Geek Squad and send some of the more literate and charismatic members among us to Washington to properly educate our lawmakers on these important technical and scientific issues.

Always assuming that such a thing as a literate, charismatic Slashdotter actually exists.

Don't underestimate those topics, they run deeper than the superficial look tells you.Video games seem ridiculous at at least frivolous as a "political issue", but the discussion runs far deeper than whether you may see blood in video games or (like it is in Germany already) whether it is replaced by green "coolant liquid" because all the people you kill are supposedly robots, or whether you may play games where you shoot people altogether.

No, the armies of Satan are not marching. Put down your assault weapon, and put down your bible too. You've bought into another over-hyped threat. The *real* enemies, as far as I'm concerned, are the criminals in the government. Yes, I said criminals. They break laws. Not just stupid laws like circumventing copyright measures or jaywalking - real laws meant to protect you and me from oppression. I don't care what party they're from. I want them *all* rounded up and brought to justice. Otherwise, what will prevent future leaders - of any party - from doing the same thing? I don't get how people can sit around and talk about compromise while this is going on. Nothing our government does, from Iraq to Immigration, is going to be done right unless this problem is addressed.

Yeah, religious extremists are bad, especially when they get violent. I agree that many politicians don't seem to be on the right side of that issue. We should be fighting *all* religious extremism - foreign and domestic. Too many would pander to the religious nuts in this country while pretending to oppose those in other countries (and of course wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process). But it's not the Armageddon scenario you're painting.

I hate to say this, but given the fact that the Commander In Chief is constitutionally responsible for things like dealing with the Iraq War (either waging or withdrawing, as your political leanings indicate), increasing or decreasing the federal government's footprint in things like military spending, the public safety net, drugs, energy and oil, foreign policy, government reform, immigration, infrastructure, etc., etc., etc., etc., isn't asking about technologically-specific issues sort of like arguing over the color of the china on the Titanic?

I mean, beyond setting policy which encourages economic growth, mindful to development issues such as environmental policy, who cares about a Presidential candidate's opinion about relatively minor stuff?

I 100% agree, although I admit he has a very slim chance of winning the republican nomination, at least he was smart and ran as a republican where he could not be denied access to the debates and at least got some minor media coverage. Overall, I think hes done a good job and should be commended. That said, since he likely won't be on the final ballot, I'll probably be voting libertarian or writing in Ron Paul.

I can't fathom this slashdot fascination with "net neutrality." If a provider spends millions or billions of dollars onfiber optic cable, routers, etc... why the heck shouldn't they be allowed to sell different qualities of service and chargedifferently for them? Shouldn't a VOIP provider who needs lower latency to avoid jitter, be able to sign up fora connection designed for VOIP?For that matter, we *already* have a tiered system of selling bandwidth... you get a T1, that's not too expensive, but you on

If only he would explain how he plans to provide services for society and cut taxes.Cutting taxes, or raising taxes, is not an immediatly good thing.

Here is an idea, figure out what service you will cut, and after cutting them see if the tax revenue is greater then the nations expenses*, then cut taxes.Doing it any other way cuts road, schools, and emergency services, but leaves pork barrel.

I would prefer a build up of cash first, say a trillion dollars. In a crisis, like Katrina, the money can quickly be a

A thing to note on Ron Paul, too, is that he is one of the few who voted against the Patriot Act and against Internet regulation. A few other nice things about him:

Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum...

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's RecordHe has never voted to raise taxes.He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.He has never voted to raise congressional pay.He has never taken a government-paid junket.He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.He voted against the Patriot Act.He voted against regulating the Internet.He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

This is, in fact, untrue. Congressman Paul has voted for numerous criminal laws, including the federal ban on dilation & extraction ("Partial Birth") abortions. Every criminal law increases the discretionary power of the executive branch, since it can choose to prosecute or not (or to pardon or not) any criminal offense. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is probably debated best case-by-case on each particular law, but that's not the claim being advanced.

Here is an interesting piece (source WND) on Ron Paul in the debate and his true comments about the war:

But who was right - Rudy or Ron?Posted: May 18, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern

It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous - the sound bite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

"I would ask the congressman to... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

A fair question and a crucial question.

When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahedeen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.

What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?

Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in co

and from the sounds of it is thus the only person who was standing on that stage who is not an idiot.

Invading Iraq was bin Laden's dream come true. He probably thought that just luring us into Afghanistan would be enough to weaken us, but then we went and not only got ourselves embroiled in an even bigger quagmire, we also took out a huge enemy of his for him. The only way in which bin Laden could have been made happier is if we had gotten involved in an even bigger quagmire by trying to take out an even bigger enemy of Osama's, namely Iran. Thank God we didn't; Iraq is an episode of American Idol compared to what invading Iran would be like.

We do not excuse - but we must understand.

Nobody fucking understands the difference anymore, and it's made us retarded. If you even imply that the terrorists are not completely insane, completely evil, and driven by nothing less than the demonic forces of hell to kill, then you are condoning their behavior. If you try to discuss the actual motivations behind their actions, you are just making excuses.

We are deliberately avoiding understanding our enemies under the guise of patriotism, and as a result we don't understand our enemies and thus, unsurprisingly, we are completely inneffective against them.

Al Gore should be offered a position in the administration: It would be a shame to waste all those PowerPoint and 3DSMAX skills. Plus the guy can take out a rowdy student with a laser pointer at 500 yards.

Bill Gates? Nay Bill. His first act would be to make all schools buy Microsoft, and recast the 'Best viewed with Internet Explorer' errors on all Government web sites. Then NASA would be forced to rewrite all their software in.NET. And we'd have to listen to him say "Cool" a lot. "Cool" is a cool word, but every time I hear Bill Gates use it the word dies a little.

I think that, while it is interesting and important to understand how a candidate feels on issues of interest to you, it is critical to understand two things.

1. No candidate, ever, will share the same views as you.2. Determining who should be President based on such specific things as their stand on copyrights is an extremely bad idea.

If American society has really become so striated that this is the most important issue to middle- and upper-middle-class white men in their 30s and 40s, then we're really in trouble.

Please. I beg of you. Consider these issues as, to use a universally understood analogy, the flair on the uniform of a candidate. Worry about economic disparity. Worry about who will or won't lie their way into a war. If a candidate promised me that he or she would introduce national single-payer healthcare, address the rapidly increasing disparity between rich and poor (and uber-rich and rich), and would put the lives of our troops above proving a point, I could live with four to eight more years of vapidity and short-sightedness in terms of DRM.

Actually the more fundamental question is, can any candidate accurately represent any individual's core beliefs? And is the idea of voting for an entire platform really democratic?

Slashdot readers will be familiar with the debates on issues such as a la carte cable channel selection, and how hard we fight to be given options instead of a one size fits all package deal. So why do we accept it with democracy? Why do we have to pick which of our beliefs are most important and vote for the person who best represents those, while sacrificing other beliefs?

The system must be changed to allow people to vote on issues, or at the very least sub-sections of government policy. Finance, social, military, environment. Yes these issues are all related, but individual opinions may not line up with the traditional slates when grouping these issues together.

So, what candidate will fight for this finer granularity in democracy?

Sadly I think the answer is none. Except for me of course (those in my geographic area, vote for me next time!)

He has the most technical experience ( Former head of the Department of Energy ), the most foreign policy experience ( Former diplomat to the UN ), and an open mind. He supports medical use of marijuana. Most of all, he seems to be an honest guy. Too many candidates seem to have a facade formed by their political handlers, Bill just appears to be who he is. And finally, he is the only candidate I have drunken a beer with, and that seals it!

You're very confused about the reasoning behind these votes. A little more due diligence on your part would go a long way toward understanding government. I will comment on the reasons, though.

# Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)-- Government should not be funding research.

# Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)-- Government is not constitutionally authorized to restrict such transport.

# Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)-- Federal government is not authorized to make this a crime, this is an area where only states are supposed to have law making power.

# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)-- The abortion issue is tricky, all libertarians do not agree on this. The logic goes like this: All people own themselves, their life, their person, etc. All people have full control of their property, and nobody may take that away from you unless you are attempting to take it from someone else first. One person's rights ends where another persons begins. Two adults have an exactly equal right to life, and no matter how beneficial it is for one person to harm another person, you may never do so unless you are threatened.

So using the above principle, person a is an unborn baby, and person b is the mother. Person A and person B have equal right to life. But at exactly which moment do all of these rights kick in? When do they start to exist? Conception? Viability? Birth? We know they kick in at some point, because all people have them, and they are inalienable. So where is it? Viability is a moving target. Does it make sense that these rights exist now at 7 months whereas 100 years ago they existed at 8 months?

The above quandary will go away eventually. In 500 years when viability is the same as conception, it will no longer be a moving target, and then we can say that rights begin at conception, I suppose.

But don't say Ron Paul is not for the rights of women. He is for the rights of everybody equally. You only differ in when you think a baby's rights start to exist.

# Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)-- Government is not authorized by the constitution to regulate cloning.

# Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)-- Government is not supposed to be promoting particular social agendas.

# Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)-- Government should not be taking money from hard working taxpayers in the US and sending out to foreign countries. If people wish to do do foreign charity work they should do it themselves. This is not in the purview of government.

Ran outta time, have to run. Hopefully the above will get you started.

I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Greens who tend to be more into civil liberties, transparency, participatory democracy, cutting back copyright law (inc. supporting free software), &c than the other parties which would appeal to a lot of the/. crowd.

I'm British (and biased as I was a Green candidate over here this month) so I don't know much about the US Green Party's policies, but looking at RMS's website [stallman.org], he seems to be promoting them.

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the announced prospective Green candidates are Alan Augustson, Elaine Brown, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift and there is speculation that Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Rebecca Rotzler, Cindy Sheehan and Al Gore might stand for the Greens.

Among the liberatrian-minded (as most of the people commenting here appear to be, though that's no surprise at Slashdot), Greens are given a bad rap as carrying on the worst elements of state socialism. In fact, this is not the case:

And some of you will remember that 2004 Green Party Presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik appeared together in the most lucid and respectful debates in generations -- and then fought together for the integrity of the vote after the election that neither of them managed to win. They disagreed on some topics, but actually agreed on more.

I've been saying for a long time now that slashdot (despite the wide spectrum of philosophies and voting practices of its readers) is becoming a political party. Let's face, we do have a common interest that is largely influenced by politics. America never had a united technocrats party before. You might be witnessing its emergence.

If I was to pick one bad apple, out of (nothing other than) rotten apples in a basket.Gravel jams the "status-quo" bullshit and lies back up the ass of the other leader-clownsand fraud-leaders (like Bush and Hillary), pseudo-patriot politicians/generals (likeChaney and Franks), faux-prophet kings (like Falwell (thankfully dead) Roberts/Robertson,Bin Laden...)....

GIVE U.S. FREEDOM FROM THE THREAT OF ALL MEGALOMANIACS/PROPHETS [AKA: Dogmatist]!

If Elected I promise:
1) Decriminalize most crimes except for the really bad ones (Murder, rape, robbery, etc) and institute a policy of impaling for the rest of them. Worked for Vlad. I'd be Greyfox the impaler.
2) Mandatory reversible sterilization for all children at puberty.
3) Breeding license. It's harder to buy a gun or a car than it is to have a child. We'll have a test to insure that the Wrong Sorts don't breed.
4) Forced breeding but
5) Child rearing is a very difficult task and parents are far too busy these days. Therefore all children will be confiscated at birth and raised in sanitary state run facilities.
6) Not only will gay marriage be legal, it will be mandatory for all people who don't hold breeding licenses.
7) All organized religion will be abolished and a mandatory state run one involving Smurfs will be put into place.
8) Mandatory Samurai honor code for corporate executives and public officials. Bring shame to your office, commit sepuku.

I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about?

This has got to be one of the stupidest questions ever asked. Slashdotters are not some group of insulated nerds living divorced from the real world (I mean, if your parents go broke, whose basement are you going to live in, huh?:-).

Off-hand, issues that I find most important are little things like the Iraq War, the disastrous ecological problems and looming energy crisis we need to face, the national debt and potential meltdown of the economy, trade imbalance and job outsourcing, to name a few. Compared to these, the technical things that I care about (i.e., copyright law, internet control, etc.) are so far down the list of issues that will form the basis for my vote they don't even register. Sorry if that's not nerdly enough for you, but if you really make your choice on technical issues at this point, you really are a clueless geek.

Fellow libertarian here, but there's one really tough question we need to ask your libertarian candidate. And that question is:
Who are you?
We need a libertarian candidate who's a self-made billionaire and can fund their own campaign.

I'll take a stab at actually guesssing what Ron Paul's views on this are. No, I didn't read his website specifically looking for this so I could be wrong, this is just based on what I know of his philosophy and voting record.

privacy/total information awareness: He is as much a privacy nut a the biggest nut job here. Essentially, since the US Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government the power to collect the data then the government does not have that power. Period. A little more unclear is his opinion on states/corporations gathering information. Corps first... my take on it is that even though he would be apalled by the practice, corporations are private entities and so the government should not prohibit then from collecting data. I really don't want to hazard a guess as to his views on state governments collecting and using data. Obviously he's opposed to it, but whether the feds should prohibit it... you'll just have to ask him.

Internet regulation and taxation: This one's easy. He's opposed to it. Period. Never voted for a tax in his life. Note that since the constitution grants the feds power to regulate interstate commerce, the question is not purely consitutional. It also means he would have no problem prohibitting states from enacting thier own taxes.(I am supposoing here...)

net neutrality: This one has me stumped. On one hand, he would support the rights of providers to run their business the way they see fit. On the other hand, they are usually government granted monopolies which he opposed. I'll have to look into this...

copyright/patent reform: This one is the one that he would disagree with most slashdotters on. While I am sure he would agree tate the current patent office is broken, I am pretty sure he will conceptually side with patent holders on this one.

the right to read: Not sure what is really meant by this? Talking about censorship perhaps? If so, then he is most certainly opposed to all forms of censorship.

the right to secure communications: I am pretty sure he would see this as a free speach issue, so yes he would be in favor of it.

the right to tinker: Pretty sure he would support this as well, despite the patent/copyright implications. At least so long it is for personal use. But this is a guess on my part.

There are things I disagree with Ron Paul on, especially his anti-immigration stances, but overall he is the one I agree with the most. I even changed my affiliation to Republican(from unaffiliated) so that I could vote for him in the primary. Do I think it would be best if he did win... not sure. But I know we need a lot more people like him in office so that maybe, a generation or two from now, we'll have the same rights we used to. It will take that long.

Actually, Libertarians typically support _the_ major form of corporate welfare-loose immigration. Ron Paul is an exception on that point(he leans towards tighter immigration rules).The thing is that citizenship rights are a form of property. If you allow immigrants that don't maintain the property values, you dilute the value of citizenship.

The US gets 10 Million immigration application each year-and takes less than a million legally. If those immigration rights were auctioned off, they'd go for at least $1